-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
Chicago residents are split, split open bleeding on the streets and sidewalks.
I hope we get a valid poll on this. Assuming Trump could do it legally (a big if), I suspect most people would be fine with it. Why look a gift horse in the mouth? they would ask, since the feds would pay for it, probably helping not just to cut crime but reduce our huge overtime bills for police. I live in Chicago and the reactions I have seen are mostly shoulder shrugs, saying sure, why not? They know crime is down from the recent spike up but they think it was always bad.
I understand this logic but don’t you worry at all about the national guard performing police duties simply because crime exists? It would be one thing if a clear plan was in place on when something like this should be done but this just seems like political showmanship. Also, it seems like it wouldn’t be a very cost effective way to police large cities. Where are all the fiscal conservatives wondering about the cost?
Understood. My comment was about how I think the public might react. My personal view is that the city and state should constructively engage Trump and come to some mutually agreeable level of help from the feds, in some form. One thing I would add is that, if you’ve been to Europe in the last 20 years or so, you’ve seen military guys with rifles on many big city street corners. There, it’s an anti-terrorism thing, but it no doubt helps deter street crimes, too. It doesn’t mean democracy ended there. A few of those in key public locations would… Read more »
Thank you for the clarification. I agree that it would be nice if Chicago would find common ground or as you put it, mutually agreeable level of help but that is not the current political climate we are living in and hasn’t been for quite some time. If one party says up the other says down. I’m also not going to make the argument that “democracy would end” as so many democrats have cried wolf. I just don’t think troops actually solves any local crime problems. Having troops stationed at key locations to address potential terrorist threats is one thing… Read more »
The Trump move that really baffles me is his new order trying to ban flag burning, even though courts long ago said a ban is unconstitutional. Conservatives have had the high ground fighting against the new left’s hostility to free speech and the First Amendment. And I thought JD Vance’s speech in Europe criticizing them for abandoning free speech was a thing of beauty. Glad to see so many conservatives are now criticizing Trump on his new order.
Agreed. He seems to be running out of “red meat” items to toss his base. It would be better for him and the party if he stuck to the 80/20 issues and forcing Democrats to take the opposite side.
The order seems to respect constitutional limitations. He does note that in some cases flag-burning might violate local open burning restrictions, in which case the feds “shall refer the matter to the appropriate State or local authority for potential action.”
Yes, he tries to say he is banning flag burning only to the extent its constitution. But the problem is that there would have to be an imminent threat to public safety caused by the flag burning to be constitutional. That’s the clear standard, and it would never be met. And here’s Turley’s reasoning why it’s unconstitutional:https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/26/running-it-up-the-flagpole-why-the-trump-order-on-flag-burning-is-unconstitutional/